User talk:Chabe01/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Castels vs châteaux

Bonsoir,

J'ai placé dans la page de discussion de Category:Castles in Marseille une remarque au sujet du classement des châteaux dans les catégories nommées castles. Je crois qu'il faudrait faire quelque chose à ce sujet. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Bonsoir, je prends note de la remarque sur la distinction de la subtilité entre les deux notions, il faudrait voir si créer une catégorie Chateaux in Marseille vaut le coup ou non. Chabe01 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statue Notre-Dame Champs St Cyr Menthon 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pont Vierge Noire Seyssel Haute Savoie 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 02:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mairie St Sorlin Bugey 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 02:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Buste Général Moragues Barcelone 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 01:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument Sardane Barcelone 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality, nice photo. -- Ikan Kekek 06:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument Sardane Barcelone 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --XRay 06:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Immeuble 10 place Catalogne Barcelone 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --XRay 06:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument Restaurateurs 1640 Lisbonne 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 02:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palais national Pena Sintra 37.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 02:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tramway place Cathédrale Lisbonne 6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --XRay 02:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tramway place Cathédrale Lisbonne 9 (cropped).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Works now it's been spun. Acabashi 09:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palais national Pena Sintra 111.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 02:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 19:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Maison 15-17-19 Grande rue Sens 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 00:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Panneaux entrée Auvergne Rhône Alpes Ain avenue Jean Monnet Crottet 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 03:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église St Cyr Menthon 133.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality photo. Acabashi 21:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Borne Km 110 Nationale 5 Sens 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Websteralive 17:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, VIGNERON (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Colonne Dom Pedro IV Lisbonne 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support
Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 13:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Buste João Câmara Lisbonne 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality, but the shaadows are a bit too strong --Michielverbeek 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bateau Santa Maria Manuela Parc Nations Lisbonne 9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tramway Ascensor Lavra Lisbonne 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statue Anges Teixeira Sintra 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support - Good quality, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 01:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Romanèche Hautecourt Romanèche 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, PantoKrtor (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, PantoKrtor (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour Chabe01. Je me suis permis d'annuler une de tes modifications. Tu as d'abord catégorisé ce fichier dans Augustodunum : c'était le bon choix et je suis revenu sur cette version. Le théâtre et l'amphithéâtre sont deux monuments différents (le second ayant disparu). C'est d'ailleurs par erreur que certains fichiers représentant le théâtre sont intitulés "Autun Amphitheater..." (pas claire mon explication mais bon...). Bien cordialement, --Arcyon (discuter) 10:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Monument aux morts

Salut Co-administrateur de la base de données des monuments aux morts (MAM) de Lille, je suis entrain de copier tes photos concernant le département 71. Nous essayons de faire l'inventaire de tous les MAM de 14/18 suite au centenaire de cette guerre.

Je voulais savoir si tu avais une photo avec les noms des morts de 1917 et plus ainsi que pour la guerre d'Algérie pour le monument de Bourgvilain. En effet, il me semble que tu as oublié au moins un panneau pour ce MAM. En tout cas, bravo pour tes photos qui nous sont d'un grand secours. Si jamais tu voulais continuer à prendre en photo les MAM, tu trouveras sur notre site les communes qui n'ont pas encore de photos en utilisant l'onglet "cartographie".

Merci pour ta coopération --Philweb (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Salut

Je viens de vérifier dans mes photos et malheureusement, je n'ai aucune autre photo du monument aux morts de Bourgvilain. Je suis content que les photos puissent servir d'autant plus qu'il m'est arrivé plusieurs voir de naviguer dans les monuments de la base de données. Étant donné que je vais continuer d'ajouter des photos, je pourrais t'informer des monuments non photographiés que j'aurais récemment pris en photo. Chabe01 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, De mon côté, je suis entrain de faire le tri des photos de mam sur wikipedia qui peuvent nous intéresser... J'ai d'ailleurs retrouvé quelques unes de tes oeuvres sur les pages des Alpes de Htes Prov. Effectivement, ce serait bien que tu me tiennes au courant pour les nouvelles photos. Je pense que tu as compris qu'est ce qui pouvait nous intéresser !!! J'essaye de faire de la pub pour le site de Lille via wikipédia. J'aimerai lancer le projet sur commons mais certains mam avec statues sont encore trop récents ! Bonnes vacances et bonnes balades --Philweb (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Bonsoir,

Je me demandais, en quoi la photo d'un transformateur ÉDF est-elle une photo de « nature » ?

KiwiNeko14 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, c'est bien une erreur de ma part. Le transformateur n'a rien à faire dans Nature in Clichy-sous-Bois. Chabe01 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your photo and Adobe Stock

Hello, File:Paris_75001_Pont_au_Change_Quai_de_l'Horloge_20161127_(02).jpg is very similar to [1] [2] attributed to a certain Mari79. Do you think it's the same photo (the cars and people seem a bit different) and if so did you license it to Adobe or are they using it without your permission? Nemo 17:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I compared the photos and there are not the same. I just think the point of views of the photos are similar. Chabe01 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour Chabe01

Je ne comprends pas très bien votre choix de déplacer Category:Sports in Montargis en dessous de la Category:Culture of Montargis.

J'avoue que je ne vois pas trop le rapport direct entre le monde du sport et celui de la culture (à part peut-être des évènements sportifs ou des sites sportifs qui seraient aussi des évènements culturels ou des édifices culturels - ça arrive mais c'est assez rare).

D'autant plus qu'en général la categorie "Sports in..." est amenée à avoir elle-même ses propres sous-catégories comme : "Sport events in...", "Sport venues in...", "Sportspeople from...",... lesquelles sous-catégories peuvent contenir des médias trans-catégories par exemple, les équipements sportifs sont aussi membres de "Buildings in...", les évènements sportifs membres de "Events in...", les sportifs membres de "People of...",...

Vous voyez que considérer Category:Sports in Montargis comme sous-catégorie de Category:Culture of Montargis peut poser des problèmes de pertinence des sous-catégorisations. Ainsi, ainsi un court de tennis ou un skate park à Montargis seraient alors considérés comme quelque chose de culturel à Montargis puisque sous-catégorie de "Sport in Montargis" qui est maintenant une sous-catégorie de "Culture of Montargis" (idem pour un boxeur Montargois qui serait considéré comme une personne culturelle - pourquoi pas, mais ça doit être assez rare).

Je vous propose de reconsidérer la Category:Sports in Montargis comme une catégorie principale de Category:Montargis (ce qui le cas généralement toutes les communes : Category:Sports in Orléans, Category:Sports in Tours (France), Category:Sports in Auxerre, Category:Sports in Angers,...) et, s'il existe des sous-catégories sportives qui contiennent des médias qui relèvent aussi du domaine de la culture, faire pour ces catégories-là de doubles liaisons. Par exemple, une salle communale est un "Buildings", mais parfois "un site sportif" et "un site culturel".

Cordialement, --Poudou99 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour,
Dans le cadre des catégorisations comme celles-ci, je me base souvent sur les grandes villes comme Paris (Category:Sports_in_Paris) ou bien les départements (Category:Sports_in_Ain). C'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai déplacé le sport dans la culture.
Cordialement, Chabe01 (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Certes, mais comme on dit "Paris n'est pas la France".
Regardez le cas de Category:Sports in Marseille, Category:Sports in Lyon, Category:Sports in Toulouse, Category:Sports in Lille, Category:Sports in Nantes, Category:Sports in Bordeaux, Category:Sports in Nice, Category:Sports in Grenoble,... pour les autres grandes villes de France, où la categorie "Sports" est rattachées à la ville.
Je trouve donc dommage que pour une petite ville comme Montargis, on fasse disparaitre la categorie "sports" sous la categorie "culture".
Je vous accorde qu'en matière de catégorisation il n'y a pas de règles strictes en ce qui concerne les hiéararchisations des catégories entre-elles et que c'est surtout une affaire de bon sens. Et, là, chacun à le sien. En ce qui me concerne, au niveau d'une ville, le monde culturel (artistes, monuments culturels, évènements culturels, édifices culturels comme les bibliothèques, les cinémas, les conservatoires,...) est assez distinct du monde du sport (sportifs, stades, matchs ou évènements sportifs, clubs sportifs,...) raison pour laquelle je les mets au même niveau.
Voilà pourquoi je n'adhère pas vraiment à votre choix, ni n'en comprend le sens peu judicieux.
J'ai essayé de vous donner des arguments de "sens", je vous laisse voir si ceux-ci sont valables par rapport à votre comparaison avec Paris (où il y a tellement de categories et tellement d'intervants, que chacun fait comme il peut pour ranger les choses à l'endroit le plus judicieux) . --Poudou99 (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Bien sûr, je comprends ce point de vue. Selon moi, le sport fait partie de la culture d'une ville, je ne limite pas la culture à l'art. Toutefois, je ne vois pas d'inconvénient à laisser Sports in Montargis dans Montargis aux dépends de Culture of Montargis. J'avais trié les photos de la commune étant donné que j'ai pris des photos de la ville et que je rangeais un peu tout cela avant de pouvoir les uploader. Chabe01 (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Je fais aussi la même chose que vous avant d'importer des photos que j'ai prises d'une ville quand je vois le "bazar" qu'il y a dans la catégorie principale où beaucoup de photos sont mises par défaut directement au niveau de la ville sans aucune action de catégorisation.
C'est donc ce que j'avais fait pour Montargis il y a quelques mois. J'avais nettoyé la catégorie principale et créé de nouvelles sous-catégories. Mais je pense qu'au fil du temps, certains contributeurs (et surtout les versements "bêtes" depuis Panoramio) ont de nouveau rempli la catégorie principale "Montargis" sans se poser de questions. D'où votre besoin de nettoyage avant chargement de vos photos.
Je vous laisse faire. Je pense que nous avons bien confronté nos points de vue. Retournons alors à nos tâches de versements de photos, un travail qui mérite bien de la patience et de la réflexion. Bonne continuation. --Poudou99 (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statue Jules César Jardin Tuileries Paris 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --GT1976 03:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tour Charles Téméraire Charolles 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Plaque jardin Semard Mâcon 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Arrêt Bus Victor Hugo Mâcon 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Salut, il me semble qu'il s'agit de la maison sise au 3 rue des trois Maries à Lyon et qu'il ne s'agit pas de la rue de la Baleine. Cordialement Pªɖaw@ne 08:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Salut, en effet, il y avait une erreur. Je l'avais catégorisé comme étant un immeuble de la rue de la Baleine car était l'image de l'immeuble du 3 rue de la Baleine dans Liste des monuments historiques de Lyon. J'ai réglé ça en déplaçant l'image au bon endroit et en cherchant une nouvelle image pour l'immeuble du 3 rue de la Baleine. Chabe01 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Anzy Duc 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Chazey Bons 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Milseburg 14:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Egan Bernal Arrivée 21e étape Tour France 2019 Paris 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église St Denis Crépy Valois 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 22:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Boîte Lettres Poste rue Maniguets Marcigny 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 05:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église St Laurent Laiz 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 17:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

City stade vs "terrains multisports"

Bonjour Chabe01.

Par ce message je voudrais juste vous signaler que le terme City Stade est une marque actuellement détenue par le groupe SAE. Par abus de langage on nomme City Stade de nombreux "terrains multisports" (Game courts en anglais) sans que ces terrains soient vraiment des terrains multisports de la marque City Stade. C'est pour cela que j'ai créé récemment la catégorie Game courts in France car, dans le doute, on ne peut pas dire que de nombreux terrains multisports en France soient vraiment des City Stades.

Si vous pensez que les terrains multisports de la catégorie Game courts in Ain sont vraiment tous des terrains de la marque City Stade, il n'y a pas de problème ; sinon, il faudrait peut-être envisager de renommer les catégories ou les photos au cas par cas.

Bien sûr, je vous laisse décider comme bon vous semblera et cela sans prendre en compte mon avis - car comme dit précédemment, il n'y a pas de règle, sauf celle du bon sens... et je ne m'en formaliserais pas plus que cela. --Poudou99 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, je ne savais pas que le terme City stade était une marque. Par conséquent, je tâcherai à modifier le nom des catégories. Merci de l'information. Chabe01 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cascade Pain Sucre Surjoux Lhopital 9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
A bit soft, but I think good enough. --Domob 08:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Dreux 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 17:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Dreux 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Ermell 18:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Motte Castrale Château Gisors 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Smial 23:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Sts Gervais Protais Gisors 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --ArildV 04:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hôtel Caisse Épargne Dreux 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --ArildV 04:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Dreux 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --RockyMasum 11:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Ruffieu 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 10:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Dreux 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --C messier 12:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Statue Monsieur Maître Montargis 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

86.246.191.215 16:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Statue Monsieur Maître Montargis 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

86.246.191.215 16:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Statue Mirabeau Montargis 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

86.246.191.215 17:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Statue Mirabeau Montargis 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

86.246.191.215 17:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Statue Mirabeau Montargis 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

86.246.191.215 17:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Statue Mirabeau Montargis 5.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

86.246.191.215 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église catholique St Pierre Jeune Strasbourg 6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 23:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tour Hôpital Civil Strasbourg 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support
Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 05:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cheval Pré Route Coudes St Cyr Menthon 8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support
Good quality. --Steindy 00:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bouche incendie 013 Chemin Romagne St Cyr Menthon 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 04:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Potager Domaine Planons St Cyr Menthon 6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Étable Ferme Domaine Planons St Cyr Menthon 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Étable Ferme Domaine Planons St Cyr Menthon 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Étables écuries Ferme Domaine Planons St Cyr Menthon 30.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grange Ferme Domaine Planons Intérieur St Cyr Menthon 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support
Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument Puthod Bâgé Châtel 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support
Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 03:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cheval Pré Route Coudes St Cyr Menthon 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --D-Kuru 18:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Sucy Brie 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 05:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument Espace Paix St Cyr Menthon 8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 05:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour Chabe01

Par définition, la catégorie Churches in Savoie est censée contenir toutes les catégories d'églises de Savoie (en tant que sous-catégories) et toutes les photos d'églises de Savoie (en tant que fichiers) qui n'ont pas de catégorie.

La catégorie Churches in Savoie contient aussi des sous-ensembles (catégories avec des critères) tels que "Churches in Savoie by city‎", "Churches in Savoie by century‎", "Churches in Savoie by patron saint". Je peux comprendre que vous voulez limiter la catégorie Churches in Savoie by city‎ aux seules communes qui ont plusieurs églises et que par conséquent vous retirez la catégorie "Churches in Savoie" pour toutes les églises de communes n'ayant qu'une seule église (si j'ai bien saisi vos actions). Mais, en faisant cela, ces églises-là ne sont plus catégorisées dans la catégorie principale "Churches in Savoie" !

J'ai commencé à mettre la catégorie "Churches in Savoie" sur les catégories d'églises de Savoie que vous aviez retirées de la catégorie "Churches in Savoie by city‎" et cela pour les catégories que j'avais dans ma liste de suivie, il faudra faire la même chose pour les autres qui ont été retirées de "Churches in Savoie by city"‎. Pour éviter un travail simultané, je peux faire ce travail en me basant sur la liste de vos contributions.

Cordialement, --Poudou99 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour,
Normalement, toutes les églises que j'avais supprimées de la category Churches in Savoie by city‎ étaient mises dans une sous-catégorie de Churches in Savoie by patron saint, ce qui fait qu'elles sont bien dans catégorisées dans Churches in Savoie. Cordialement Chabe01 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour
Non, car la catégorie de Churches in Savoie by patron saint n'est pas vraiment une sous-catégorie, c'est une speudo-catégorie qui contient un sous ensemble de la catégorie Churches in Savoie. Et on ne connait pas forcémment le nom du saint patron de toutes les églises et je ne suis pas sûr que les églises non catholiques (protestantes, orthodoxes, ou d'autres cultes portent toutes le nom d'un saint patron).
Les catégories de type "sous-ensemble" sont créés avec un alias du type |* ou |+ ou |espace etc, ceci pour les sortir de la liste des sous-catégories filles et les regrouper au début sans critère alphabétique et seul leur nom indique ce qu'elles contiennent (selon le critère choisi pour réunir des éléments dans ces catégories de ce type là). En outre toutes ce qu'il y a dans ces catégories là, par exemple "Protestant churches in Savoie‎" ou "Baroque churches in Savoie‎" ne contient pas forcément l'ensemble de toutes les églises de Savoie. Il aurait fallut les mettre toutes soit dans "Churches in Savoie by city‎", ou soit dans la catégorie mère "Churches in Savoie", ou dans toute autre sous-catégorie dont le contenu forme l'union de toutes les églises de Savoie.
Car, quelque part (au niveau de la catégorie mère ou d'une de ses sous-catégories filles), il faut bien que l'on trouvent toutes les églises de Savoie à l'intérieur d'une même catégorie unique et non pas une partie dans une sous-catégorie et le reste ailleurs.
Par exemple :
Dans d'autres cas, certains on préféré créer plusieurs sous-cagtégories filles nommées "Churhes in Churches in Arrondissement..." (voir Category:Churches in Moselle, ou Category:Churches in Bas-Rhin)
Pour terminer, si on laisse la catégorie "Churches in Savoie by city‎" (sans autre qualificatif) on s'attendra, de part le nom de cette catégorie, à y trouver toutes les églises de toutes les villes (ou communes) de Savoie; ce qui n'est pas le cas maintenant.--Poudou99 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-bonjour

Pour être cohérent, les églises qui sont classées dans des sous-catégories de la catégorie "Churches in Savoie by city" doivent aussi être classées dans la catégorie principale "Churches in Savoie", sinon on arrivera jamais à avoir une catégorie qui contient la liste vraiment exhaustive de toutes les églises de Savoie.
On se trouve maintenant dans une situation bancale où une partie des églises est classée sous "Churches in Savoie by city" (pour celles qui sont dans des communes qui ont plusieurs églises) et l'autre partie au premier niveau de la catégorie principale "Churches in Savoie".

J'attends votre avis avant d'entreprendre une quelconque action. --Poudou99 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonsoir, concernant la manière de trier les catégories concernant les églises de Savoie, je n'ai pas de préférence étant donné qu'il n'y a pas de règle stricte. Chabe01 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Sculpture Cercandosi Parc Hôtel Ville Fontenay Bois 4.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Sculpture Cercandosi Parc Hôtel Ville Fontenay Bois 4.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

File copyright status

Information icon Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the project, one or more of your file uploads had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status. Please note that Wikimedia Commons takes copyright rules and infringement very seriously. Files may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our licensing policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. Files that fail to meet those conditions may be deleted, and users who fail to meet them may be blocked. Please follow our first steps, if you haven't already. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the Village Pump copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour. Pourriez-vous lire les règles concernant la liberté de panorama et les mettre en oeuvre une bonne fois pour toutes ? Merci d'avance, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai déjà lu ces règles mais je ne comprends pas la raison pour laquelle il y a des photos qui ne sont pas supprimées alors qu'elles n'ont pas l'air de respecter les règles qui sont imposées. Par conséquent, je pensais que certaines des règles imposées ne s'appliquait pas. Chabe01 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
En outre, vous devez vous référer à ceci: en France, toute oeuvre est protégée 70 ans après la mort de son auteur; aussi seules les photographies des monuments les plus anciens peuvent être utilisées ici. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, je me trompe peut-être mais suite à ton renommage de la catégorie Cimetière nouveau de Vincennes in Fontenay-sous-Bois et au changement de catégorisation de celle-ci : removed Category:Vincennes; added Category:Things named after Vincennes, j'ai l'impression que tu penses que le nom du cimetière est Cimetière nouveau de Vincennes. En fait, il s'agit du Cimetière nouveau de la ville de Vincennes et celui-ci est à Fontenay-sous-Bois[1]. Cordialement - Drongou (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, effectivement, j’habite près de ce cimetière qui est bien à Fontenay-sous-Bois. Si je ne me trompe pas, c’est bien celui de la ville de Vincennes étant donné le manque de place sur le territoire communal. Je l‘avais mis dans Things named after Vincennes car l’édifice ne se trouve pas dans le territoire de Vincennes. Chabe01 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument morts Guerre 1870 Thiais 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statue Triomphe République Paris 8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Ermell 23:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statue Triomphe République Paris 7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Ermell 23:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Tour Montparnasse vue depuis Pont Iéna Paris 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Longjumeau

Bonjour Chabe01,

Je vous remercie pour cette image sur la droite, qui illustre bien l'article sur la ligne. J'ai un petit reproche à faire : une station s'appelle « Longjumeaux » au lieu de « Logjumeau ». Si vous pouviez corriger, ce serait une amélioration très appréciable.

Merci d'avance à vous et bonne continuation ! --Laurent Jerry (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, merci du retour et avec un peu de retard, j'ai enfin corrigé le nom de la station de Longjumeau. Il en est de même pour le fichier File:Plan Paris Tramway ligne 12-2023.svg. Chabe01 (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Bonsoir.
Il y a une erreur : le TZEN 1 ne peut pas être en correspondance avec la gare d'Évry-Courcouronnes, son terminus est la gare de Corbeil-Essonnes, qui est aussi le point de départ du futur TZEN 4. --Poudou99 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Par ailleurs, pour la gare "Massy-Palaiseau", je ne comprends pas la signification de l'icône qui représente un train sous les icônes  B et RER C et au-dessus de l'icône qui représente un TGV. À ma connaissance, en dehors des RER B/C et des TGV de la gare de Massy-TGV ou les TGV du contournement sud de Paris, je ne vois pas quel autre type de train dessert cette gare (aucun TER d'ailleurs).--Poudou99 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Les correspondances viennent d'être corrigées Chabe01 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Merci... Mais il n'y a pas de quoi. --Poudou99 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour Chabe01,

La ligne T6 du tramway de Lyon vient de rentrer en service, peux-tu faire en sorte que le plan soit mis à jour (retirer les pointillés de la ligne) ? Merci. Prométhée (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Bonsoir, le plan a été mis à jour Chabe01 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Afrikaans | azərbaycanca | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | Nederlands | norsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | sicilianu | Simple English | suomi | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | Ελληνικά | български | македонски | русский | српски / srpski | українська | հայերեն | मराठी | हिन्दी | বাংলা | മലയാളം | ไทย | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | עברית |العربية | فارسی | +/−


Hello Chabe01.

You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful.

This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

--Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Afrikaans | azərbaycanca | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | Nederlands | norsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | sicilianu | Simple English | suomi | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | Ελληνικά | български | македонски | русский | српски / srpski | українська | հայերեն | मराठी | हिन्दी | বাংলা | മലയാളം | ไทย | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | עברית |العربية | فارسی | +/−


Hello Chabe01.

You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful.

This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

--Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Je vous renvoie à mon message du 27 octobre dernier et à votre réponse me faisant croire que vous alliez vous conformer aux règles concernant la (non-)liberté de panorama en France. A la prochaine infraction, je demanderais donc votre blocage. A bon entendeur, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour, ayant lu les conditions, je ne comprends pas les suppressions concernant les œuvres dont on ne connaît pas les auteurs. Je crois surtout qu'il y a un acharnement contre certaines personnes car certaines photos d'autres auteurs n'ont pas l'air d'être soumises à la suppression alors que les conditions requises pour cette suppression ont l'air d'être requises. Chabe01 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Ce n'est pas une réponse: si vous pensez que certains fichiers ne sont pas valides, vous n'avez qu'à les proposer à la suppression. Ce sont, en l'occurrence, vos fichiers qui sont problématiques. Vous avez reçu un avertissement final et il n'y en aura pas d'autre : soit vous vous conformez à la loi sur le droit d'auteur, soit vous vous abstenez de téléverser. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Bien sûr, je comprends tout à fait ce point de vue et je n'ai point envie de retrouver mon compte bloqué. Je vous demanderai des conseils pour savoir comment faire par la suite si mon compte est bloqué afin de continuer à pouvoir contribuer. Chabe01 (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 5.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 8.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 6.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 4.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 9.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 7.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donjon Temple Chazey Bons 10.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Allony (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Pay attention to copyright
File:Fußball Arena Zone presse Munich 3.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: COM:SS
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Pay attention to copyright
File:Fußball Arena Zone presse Munich 4.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: COM:SS
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Kiosque Place Pierre Semard Vincennes 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Kiosque Place Pierre Semard Vincennes 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Panneau Plan Centre Commercial Val Fontenay Fontenay Bois 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Panneau Plan Centre Commercial Val Fontenay Fontenay Bois 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Station Vélib' Square Théâtre Grande Chasse Lilas 4.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Station Vélib' Square Théâtre Grande Chasse Lilas 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Plan commune place Mairie St Cyr Menthon 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Plan commune place Mairie St Cyr Menthon 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Plan commune place Mairie St Cyr Menthon 4.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Plan commune place Mairie St Cyr Menthon 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Haut-Valromey.png

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Haut-Valromey.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Le Poizat-Lalleyriat.png

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Le Poizat-Lalleyriat.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Arboys-en-Bugey.png

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Arboys-en-Bugey.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Groslée-Saint-Benoît.png

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Groslée-Saint-Benoît.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Champdor-Corcelles.png

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Champdor-Corcelles.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Parves-et-Nattages.png

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Parves-et-Nattages.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Val-Revermont.png

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Val-Revermont.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Bâgé-le-Châtel.svg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bâgé-le-Châtel.svg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Bâgé-le-Châtel Géolocalisation.svg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bâgé-le-Châtel Géolocalisation.svg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Plan Saint-André-de-Bâgé.svg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Plan Saint-André-de-Bâgé.svg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Pont-de-Veyle.svg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Pont-de-Veyle.svg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Mâcon Nord.svg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Mâcon Nord.svg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Mâcon Sud.svg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Mâcon Sud.svg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Mâcon Centre.svg

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Mâcon Centre.svg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Idw/layout A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Entrée Station Porte St Ouen Paris 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Idw/layout A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate A1Cafel ([[User talk:A1Cafel|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  1. https://www.vincennes.fr/inhumations